The Grenada gazette. (Grenada, Miss.) 1885-18??, 1887-02-12

NhN
oaths Of a certain number of compuroa-
tors. In matters Of general concern, i,
was usual, In arriving at q decision, to
appeal to the testimony of the neigh,
borhood; and it seems also that sworn
witnesses were appointed in each dis.
trict, their duty being to attest all bar.
gains and transactions. in order that
they might be ready to give evidence in
case of dispute. Every care, we are
told further, was taken that all deal
lngs between man and man should b,
as open and public as possible. Not
withstanding that Duke William fa
vored the absurd and crude syS
tenn of battle-right, it is not improbable
that to the Conquest we are indebted
for the introduction of trial by jury in
very much the form in which we are ac.
customed to it. 1t was introduced into
Normandy itself from Scandina via,
under Rolla, and there is mention of a
jury trial before twelve men-the first
so constituted of which there is record
in the time of William. Suit had been
brought about a piece of land to which
Gundulph, Bishop of Rochester, was a
party. The King not caring to give
decision himself, referred the matter to
the country to be determined there in
accordance with the Saxon usage in
such cases. This course was taken,
but the result was not satisfactory to
Odo, Bishop of Bayeux. who had pre-
sided at the hearing, and he ordered
that the case should be reheard, in ac-
cordance with the Norman custom, be-
fore twelve men, who SHOULD give their
opinion of the matter upon their oaths.
1t seems hat originally the jury did
not trouble themselves to take evil
dence in court. Summoned from the
very neighborhood in which the trans
action at issue had occurred, they were
supposed to be familiar with its details;
and they therefore "a true verdict
gave, not as now, in accordance with
evidence formally drawn up, but in &C.
cordance with their own knowledge
and observation. 1t was enough in
civil cases that the verdict should be
rpon their belief. Nor was it neces.
sary that they should all agree. Unan.
unity does not seem to have been in.
sisted upon before the end of the Thir-
teenth century; and even when it was
regarded Is an absolute necessity an
easy way was taken of getting at the
desired results. What was done was
to keep adding fresh members to the
original jury, until twelve were got To
agree. And even later, when the
course was adopted of starving a jury
into unanimity, it was within the juris-
diction of the court to accept a ma
jority verdict after the jury had had
what was considered ample time to
make up their minds. 1t was not until
the reign of Edward III, that it was set
tied in the Kings Bench that the YER
dict must be unanimous; and this de-
cision has ever since been binding in
the English courts. Early in the reign,
however, a ease occurred in which a
Juror in an action of tresspass would
not agree with his fellows, and he was
summarily dealt with. The Judge very
coolly committed him to gaol. and took
the verdict of the eleven. This
was not so great an outrage as that
which occurred as late as 1868, when
the trial of Sir Nicholas T%hrockmor-
ton for high treason, the jury, who
found the defendant not guilty, were
were heavily fined therefor and impris-
oned for several months. In Scotland
the verdict of q majority still s%uficcs,
but there fifteen men are sworn out Of
q list of ~forty-five. There, also, three
verdicts may be returned-"Not
guilty." Guilty and Not proven"
In England "Not Proven is regarded
as a verdict of acquittal, and this is
the practical effect in Scotland, though
in many cases it is liable to the Irish
Interpretation: 1--WE find the prisoner
not guilty, but he mustn'tdo it again.
The theory in all criminal cases is
that a man stands his trial before his
peers. 1t is no longer, however,
considered necessary that tho
Jury should be made up of per-
sons drawn from the same station OF
as the accused. 1t is enough that
they are reputable and unprecedented
men drawn from the county or dis
trict in which the trial is held. But il
nay happen that a prisoner sees reason
find fault with the constitution of the
Jury. In that case he has the right Of
challenger. and the men whom he OBJ
Iccts to will be removed and others put
their places. The prosecutor, on tho
,ther hand, has right Of challenge also.